RE: SMLIF inter-document reference proposal

I read the proposal and I agree with the set of changes suggested in it. As pointed out by Ginny, some text has been changed due to bug fixes. The editors will need to rework bits of the text to match the updated text. However, that would not be major work.


From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 6:53 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org; Sandy Gao
Subject: RE: SMLIF inter-document reference proposal

Sandy,

Some comments from my first reading. In general, I am in agreement with what I think you are proposing. I would want to see the final edited SML-IF spec again to make sure since it is a little hard to judge this way.

Just a note: the diff document is based on an older copy of the spec. The section major number is generally +2 from what you see in your diff doc. Some text has also changed since bugs 4755, 4819, 5119, 5114, 5117 are closed.

1 - Are you proposing that the term 'interdocument reference' be changed to 'URI Reference'?  Can we keep the term 'interdocument reference' in place just for now until we agree to the changes you propose and then decide on the specific term later? This new term was confusing me since it is being overloaded.

2 - About URI (interdocument ref) Processing. The URIs are processed by the SML-IF producer who constructs the document aliases when packaging up the model into an SML-IF document. I always envisioned that the SML-IF consumer would unpack the SML-IF document into its own environment, including 'adjusting' the interdocument references to fit the consuming environment using the document aliases. The process of matching the correct document to each SML reference is covered in this section. One question - do you see an SML validator processing an SML-IF document as is? For example, in "URI Reference Processing", step 4.b., why would a fragment identifier be followed to grab non-root targets except by an SML model validator?

3 - Along the same lines, on page 5 is the following which mentions an unresolved SML reference. We don't know if this is really an unresolved SML reference or not. The user may request that the producer not include this document and/or the document could actually be located on the consuming end when the SML model is processed by an validator. Wouldn't this just be an unresolved interdocument reference?

The |↑fragment-free part of the↑ reference|↓:↓

http://www.university.example.org/Universities/Capella/Courses.xml

 #xmlns(u=http://www.university.example.org/ns)

  xpointer(/u:Courses/u:Course[u:Name='LIT103'])

|↑is

http://www.university.example.org/Universities/Capella/Courses.xml
which↑ is not equivalent to the URI in any alias. This means that it is an unresolved |↑SML↑ reference.

--
ginny

________________________________
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sandy Gao
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:50 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: SMLIF inter-document reference proposal



Sorry for taking this long to have this ready.

Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG<http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema/>
Member, W3C SML WG<http://www.w3.org/XML/SML/>
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 313-3255